|
 |
nemesis wrote:
> What I'm trying to say is that W95, WNT or Vista,
> while not the same OS, continue using old API code to handle old user
> apps. So, it's MS made cross-platform software possible. The old apps
> are still relying on old API code, not new code from the new OS handling
> the old apps.
Um, yes. So you're saying "Yes, MS made it possible to run the same
executables on multiple operating systems over the course of decades.
But that doesn't count, because it wasn't magic"? I'm not sure why you
think you're disagreeing with me here.
> What really made cross-platform software a little more closer to reality
> were industry-strength standards,
Like what? I haven't seen any standards that actually allow for programs
to run cross-platform. Maybe I'm not following what you mean.
> the internet,
The internet doesn't make programs run cross-platform. It just gives you
a way to access them when they're running on someone else's platform.
> quite a few cross-platform development languages (Java, Python, Perl etc)
And BASIC. Which used to run everywhere. And was promoted and
implemented by MS (amongst others).
Note that Java, Python, etc are all libraries controlled by one company
or individual that give you cross-platform APIs for your code. Just like
Win32. Except they don't provide executables.
> and, yes, open-source software.
Sure.
> You have the source and it's compiled and running
> everywhere, so let's build more from there on and get done with it.
I agree that open source software is probably a better way to do stuff,
as long as you aren't worried about making a living at it.
> No more proprietary APIs, more portability across truly different
OSes...
Uh, so, how much Linux software runs without recompiling under Solaris?
Does that actually work?
I think the only thing that's actually going to satisfy you is virtual
machine stuff, like VMWare.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
 |